Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 3/2017

01-05-2017 | Original Article

Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Aim

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of measurements made on digital models created using an intraoral color scanner compared to measurements on dental plaster models.

Methods

This study included impressions of 28 volunteers. Alginate impressions were used to make plaster models, and each volunteers’ dentition was scanned with a TRIOS Color intraoral scanner. Two examiners performed measurements on the plaster models using a digital caliper and measured the digital models using Ortho Analyzer software. The examiners measured 52 distances, including tooth diameter and height, overjet, overbite, intercanine and intermolar distances, and the sagittal relationship. The paired t test was used to assess intra-examiner performance and measurement accuracy of the two examiners for both plaster and digital models. The level of clinically relevant differences between the measurements according to the threshold used was evaluated and a formula was applied to calculate the chance of finding clinically relevant errors on measurements on plaster and digital models.

Results

For several parameters, statistically significant differences were found between the measurements on the two different models. However, most of these discrepancies were not considered clinically significant. The measurement of the crown height of upper central incisors had the highest measurement error for both examiners. Based on the interexaminer performance, reproducibility of the measurements was poor for some of the parameters.

Conclusions

Overall, our findings showed that most of the measurements on digital models created using the TRIOS Color scanner and measured with Ortho Analyzer software had a clinically acceptable accuracy compared to the same measurements made with a caliper on plaster models, but the measuring method can affect the reproducibility of the measurements.
Literature
1.
Abizadeh N, Moles DR, O’Neill J et al (2012) Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they? J Orthod 39:151–159CrossRefPubMed
2.
Akyalcin S, Cozad BE, English JD et al (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of impression-free digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial 144:916–922CrossRef
3.
Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C et al (2010) Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 32:589–595CrossRefPubMed
4.
Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA et al (2012) Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofac. Orthop 142:308–313CrossRef
5.
de Waard O, Rangel FA, Fudalej PS et al (2014) Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 146:328–336CrossRefPubMed
6.
Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:1–16CrossRefPubMed
7.
Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K et al (2013) Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:471–478CrossRefPubMed
8.
Garino F, Garino GB (2002) Comparison of dental arch measurements between stone and digital casts. World J Orthod 3:250–254
9.
Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A et al (2016) Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 38:422–428CrossRefPubMed
10.
Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE (2014) Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 146:673–682CrossRefPubMed
11.
Grunheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL et al (2014) Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 145:157–164CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hurt AJ (2012) Digital technology in the orthodontic laboratory. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 141:245–247CrossRef
13.
Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N et al (2010) Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little’s Index. Angle Orthod 80:435–439CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO (2014) Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 84:443–450CrossRefPubMed
15.
Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS et al. (2009) Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136:16 e1–4 (discussion 16)
16.
Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P et al (2007) Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:346–352CrossRef
17.
Naidu D, Freer TJ (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:304–310CrossRef
18.
Pandis N (2012) Sample calculations for comparison of 2 means. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 141:519–521CrossRef
19.
Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M et al (2003) Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:101–105CrossRef
20.
Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B et al (2006) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129:794–803CrossRef
21.
Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM et al (2001) A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 71:351–357PubMed
22.
Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD et al (2010) Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod 80:474–481CrossRefPubMed
23.
van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D et al (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 7:e43312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS (2010) Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:456 e1–9 (discussion 456–457)
25.
Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Nolthenius HET et al (2013) Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:140–147CrossRef
26.
Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA (2003) Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod 73:301–306PubMed
Metadata
Title
Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner
Publication date
01-05-2017
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0070-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 3/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Soft tissue changes in the orofacial region after rapid maxillary expansion

Original Article

Release of fluoride from orthodontic adhesives and penetration into enamel

Original Article

Effects of impacted maxillary canines on root resorption of lateral incisors

Original Article

Mechanical properties of different esthetic and conventional orthodontic wires in bending tests

Original Article

Retrospective 25-year follow-up of treatment outcomes in angle Class III patients

Original Article

Dental Angle class asymmetry and temporomandibular disorders